It’s my job to show them something they haven’t seen… not just another version of something already done.”

[Robert Altman]

This quote made me smile.

Being a trend setter is a bit lonely, if exciting. You see things differently, sometimes a few years ahead of the market.

If you manage to experiment and do your ideas, you even find ways to integrate what you learn in your day work. Which is how you get to be a bit different in tone, voice, and personality, on behalf of a brand or business.

And sometimes even valued more because of it. It does take good leadership to step away from what feels "safe" in favor of what is new.

The truth is everyone loves to find out what's next. Yet, people will do it only when everyone else is on board. As if that made it right and appropriate to do because someone else was doing it. Everyone loves a market leader, wishes they could become one.

There is one way to do that -- having the guts to decide to go where nobody else is going. Often without tangible proof, just a hunch and a belief. While you can use all kinds of data to prove a point, you won't know if something new works until you do it.

What if there was a way to see correlations between data points and potential futures? How about gaining access to lots of diverse resources you may not have thought would go together? Plus, information about new initiatives and exclusive opportunities -- all for the cost of a latte each month.

You will have the opportunity to do just that.

***

Starting in June, I will be shifting most of the trend analysis, exclusive information, and unique business resources to the monthly Conversation Agent Premium Newsletter.

This week I hit 1,500 posts at this site. That's a lot of free content, much of it still very relevant and timely (you see me link to material I wrote 4 years ago). I will continue to offer personal news commentary and brief write ups on marketing, business strategy, and technology for free here.

I am also providing another opportunity for people who wish to promote their business, event, service, or simply to thank me for a referral by sponsoring this feed for a week.

This community includes some of the biggest names in business: Tastemakers, evangelists, and early adopters. They're the people defining good business practices; making ideas happen; understanding and building influence, future trends, and technology.

Look for more information on how to get trend analysis, diverse business resources, and exclusive information delivered to your inbox monthly for the price of a latte next week.

How many brand managers realize they've hit parity with their customers?

A research paper from the Center for Corporate Change that questions loyalty programs finds that (emphasis mine):

customer loyalty programs which (i) directly enhance the product/service value proposition, or (ii) broaden the availability of the product/service, or (iii) neutralize a competitor’s program, may be worthwhile.

But they also suggest that (iv) it is probably a mistake to introduce a frequent-buyer program if you are selling a parity brand in a competitive market.

To understand the implications of this statement, the findings are non customer-centric. The paper highlights the reasons for the increasing interest in loyalty programs and debunks some widely-held beliefs among marketing managers about the loyalty of their customers:

(a) a significant number of customers want an involving relationship with the brands they buy,

(b) a proportion of these buyers are hard-core loyal and only buy the one brand,

(c) these hard-core loyal buyers are a profitable group because they are numerically large and are heavy or frequent buyers,

(d) it should be possible to reinforce the loyalty of these buyers and encourage them up a “loyalty ladder”, and

(e) database technology can be used to establish a personalized dialogue with customers which will bring about moves up the loyalty ladder

These are myths. Organizations introduce loyalty programs expecting to maintain sales levels and the corresponding profit margins, and, even better, cross-sell other products, and acquire incremental sales with existing customers.

These goals will need a reality check to make the programs an effective use of marketing dollars. The research found that an organization's most loyal customers, I'd call those the 10% vs. the 20% cited, also buys from a competitive brand.

Loyalty is not exclusive.

When loyalty is a tactical brand move vs. part of a strategic plan

The decision to launch a program is often motivated by fears of competitive parity.

Therefore the program is based upon tactical motives -- seeking to differentiate a parity brand, trying to preempt a competitor either form introducing a loyalty program or the entry of a new parity brand in the market.

Research conducted in Europe, Japan and the US market over 20 years found that 10% of buyers become customers. Even then, this 10% is also loyal to other brands.

Think about the credit cards in your wallet, your airline mileage programs, and the products in your refrigerator -- and you'll find that you do have a couple of favorite brands as well.

The research results also suggest that the marketing mix of a brand (its product/service formulation, price, promotion, and distribution) determines its market share, and once this settles down, then the level of brand loyalty is strongly correlated with market share.

Say you want to change the buyers choice process from one purchase to repeated purchases -- building relationships is a strategic move, it requires long-term commitment and funding.

[table from the report]

Marketing levers

You can be more profitable in a niche brand, for example, because you may be able to have higher margins. Loyalty may also be the product of volume -- more people buying, more buying again. Which is why distribution deals are such a big deal, if you'll forgive the pun.

You could also have psychological, functional, or economic customer value. However, if the value is to the program and not the product, what happens when the program changes?

When it comes to pricing structures, loyalty to the product is essential. What makes a customer buy at a higher price? Perceived brand/product value. Think about Apple.

Also, if the incentive is the primary reward, when it gets taken away all you have is a "me, too" brand. As well, the reward should support the value proposition and positioning of the product.

Would a loyalty program be an effective use of marketing funds? Typically, the costs of frequent flyer programs run at 3% to 6% of revenues. As way of comparison, many airlines allocate 3% to advertising.

Add-on customer loyalty programs have the same effect of add-on social media presences to brands. When not integrated with the value proposition of the product, and when the customer experience is different, they are not going to work so well.

Stevie is an independent jewelry artist who works and lives in Chicago. On May 25, she discovered that Urban Outfitters was selling a necklace that resembled her “I Heart NY” and by the very same name. Stevie posted the article on her Tumblr account.

The article was picked up Gayla Trail who posted a link to her Facebook page and was discovered by Amber Karnes, who tweeted about the story. The rest, as they say, is history repeating itself -- soon, the topic started trending on Twitter all over the world.

Few did the research to find out more before spreading the links. Helen Killer did on May 27, and what she found out will surprise you. It brings into question what is happening in social networks with content creators as well.

Here's why Stevie's story spread the way it did.

Influence triggers

Social networks have given people the ability to see what is going on miles and miles away from home. Having a profile on Twitter, or Facebook, means being able to comment and talk back -- to take action, and help spread a story. The social network and search engines play their part in making it visible.

Just like for many other communications that precipitated crises for organizations and governments, the catalyst was someone with very modest follower/friend counts online.

Certainly, not the people those businesses and entities would have been monitoring for signs of trouble, or looking to reach out to in an "influencer" program. Was this a special case?

Action figures

As I shared during our panel conversation on how to measure influence last week at Mesh, it was not. It is every communicator's monster in the closet moment. Yet, it shouldn't be a case of "damned if you do; damned if you don't" -- the truth, or a story people are feeling strongly about, has already come out for heaven's sake.

Do something.

With every new crisis situation in social networks it's becoming clear that the sooner the organization does something, the better off in the long term. Reputation management by silence can become quite expensive quickly.

Even as it could be a "tempest in a teacup" in the short term, you've got to show up for good and for bad, especially if your business is active in social networks. Set the record straight, apologize when warranted, communicate your plan to fix the problem as needed.

In the age of knowledge flows, drawing the bridge is not going to work so well anymore.

What is the matter?

Conversations about influence regularly lead to debating who is influential.

Keeping score on a few people leaves out the power of tribes -- those 1,000 true fans, as defined by Kevin Kelly and discussed further by Seth Godin. Those are the people who will buy (and attribute, thus protect) everything you produce.

Stevie belongs to the craft artists tribe -- they all identify with each other on the basis of their art. What trumps who. Hurt one of us, and you hurt us all, which means we will help get the word out. Once the news spreads beyond the tribe, it reaches mainstream human based upon the David vs. Goliath archetype.

The organization that finds itself on the receiving end of this wave of support against it, has its own what to attend to. As in what it is going to say and do become critical to how it will be perceived moving forward.

I also know from experience that often employees set up Google Alerts on several keywords, certainly on the company name. If you have a sales team, they are fore and center in this practice. When they see the organization not doing anything, they do take action in their circles.

Which may compound the issue.

Ripple effects

There are no small circles in an interconnected world. It isn't about the circles at all. It's about the points of connection -- and the object of attention. What goes around comes around has taken a whole new meaning with circles of friends connected online.

Being more connected means people have the opportunity to hear about and see things they might not otherwise learn or find out as news. While who we are drives our activity in social networks -- and in life -- we choose to act based upon a what.

Issue, cause, as in the story and one of the key take aways in Karnes' post, the what is the object and then subject of our attention. We look at who did the spreading, if at all, just to confirm that they are legitimate.

In the case of a friend, we know; in the case of a weaker connection, we may check them out -- their authority, who is connected to them. Online tools help us see that. By the time the organization realizes what is happening, it doesn't matter who, the ripple effect has overtaken follower counts.

3 reasons why what is more important than who

Which is why what matters a great deal more than who when it comes to influencing action. The three main triggers are:

a story that resonates -- emotional triggers are very powerful

the ability to spread it -- the connections in social networks make it super easy

doing something meaningful -- to feel part of something greater than self

I was sorry to learn about the incident for all involved, including Urban Outfitters. Surely there was a way to work with the artist in the production of the necklace. Why not support artists and craftspeople? Should customer- and artist-driven innovation be free?

However, this line of thinking assumes a direct correlation between Stevie and the copying. What if that is not exactly the case? Helen Killer casts doubts on this version of the story.

Who matters, of course. All the people involved in spreading the story matter. As always, the answer is not a straight line.

(We'll tackle who should be on your outreach program Thursday.)

Who has influence now?

Had you seen the tweets about this story? Since I was attending Mesh, I was very focused on the live interactions for a few days and only saw the story Friday. Would you have acted differently had it happened to you?

If you read the comments to Amber's post, you will find out that Stevie had used the design of another artist, Sudlow, for the necklace. @grabbeth Michael from London also adds some perspective to how Urban Outfitters could have sourced the product:

Whilst in this case due to the usage of the same name and copying of text, it would be very difficult for UO to argue innocence, I think the reality in many cases is that a foreign manufacturer may have seen the designs and decided to replicate in bulk. Subsequently, a buyer for UO saw the designs, and bought them.

Even if you know nothing of Urban Outfitters, the comment thread is bubbling up similar situations with other designers, which doesn't cast them in a good light. And the retail company does work with artists. Which is one on the positive end of things.

The more of a reason to respond with more than "we're investigating" rather quickly and clarify the company's philosophy and actions.

What matters

Social networks and digital tools do empower individuals to speak up and spread news. The power is still with the organization to do something about it and go through the 1-2-3 of whats in reverse order to restore faith in their business by fixing the issue at the root.

Will hundreds of people boycott Urban Outfitters now that we know this? Ironically, the lack of further action by the outraged community returns the influence earned with the attention to the issue back to the organization not taking action.

The lesson: A connected and unorganized community loses power where it matters the most -- results and change.

Your take?

I'm thinking this is a good opportunity for Urban Outfitters to set the record straight on its business practices -- and change them as/if needed. Use this incident and the fact that it has attracted attention to address the ongoing conversation about its products.

Call it an incentive to do better. What would you do if you were in their position?

I was discussing infographics with Joe Chernov at Eloqua for an upcoming post he was working on and wanted to bring that conversation here. What makes a good infographic?

A good infographic starts with a good "why" question. Even if you're trying to prove a theory, it's important to keep an open mind to the data you find. And please do keep in mind where you're going with the answer.

Looking into an issue credibly means using data sets and information from reliable sources and expressing the resulting point of view in a compelling visual story that carries the meaning to its intended audience.

The aim should be to make the complex easy to access and digest, and answer a question -- not just throw a bunch of random numbers on a graphic. Especially not that if you're sharing information that you hope will net you a business decision.

Because in that case, what you have is the cousin of a bad PowerPoint deck. No point in sight.

There is also another kid of opportunity digital storytellers are missing when they're still thinking in terms of paper.

An example of an early print project executed using infographics was Understanding -- a book published by TED Conferences Inc. and curated by Richard Saul Worman in 1999 with the support of several organizations.

The goal was to make public information easily accessible, available, and understandable through presentation, design, and good structuring. Worman asked several information design professionals to contribute to the project.

Which was about answering the simple, basic questions in the minds of the American people with clarity. Because, as in the curator's forward own words, understanding information is power. A book can move people to action. See what happened with Be Outraged! The message it carried spread with the form and tone used to communicate it.

While Understanding, which I own courtesy of project sponsor Steelcase Inc., is visually compelling, it also had its flaws -- lack of indexing and overlap of data sets in several sections made it hard to use. Pity that the site is no longer live. Maybe the digital format included some of these features.

This is the kind of project that warrants a more 3-D experience. Using links and shortcuts, explanation boxes that expand on roll over and overall better accessibility for those who don't live and breathe data and information.

Many of these features are not yet employed by current infographics. We are still designing for the paper medium, even online where we could architect deeper experiences, allowing people to change variables, look deeper into data sets and see sources/combine elements, etc.

I even wonder if this is where multimedia skill-level games meet business in terms of production and user adoption.

People have a much higher threshold for complexity when playing a game -- dealing with changing context and situations, tracking competition, etc. -- and if we manage to write the correct rules into them, we could come up with some pretty compelling results of evolving data in the stream.

In return, we would get to observe the paths charted by those interacting with the information and data. Improving the overall experience and usability would come next. And with that a potential opening for co-creation.

Good infographics are faithful if creative representations of serious inquiry. Great infographics show us what is possible.

I prepared this very short deck as visual support for my conversation on measuring online influence at Mesh Conference with David Armano. In it, I summarized some very top level points for some of the tools we discussed here, and a couple of posts David has written recently.

how do you get people to do "xyz"? David and I will address my favorite question: why?

do you need scale? Is there higher influence in smaller circles?

can we move from retweets to clicks? How about validating metrics?

True influencers are those who have built platforms where attention and trust are currencies. They may very well be the ones who have 1,000 true fans. And now marketers are looking for those people online -- to win the attention lottery for themselves.

Can you measure online influence? You sure can. Is it a matter of finding that one tool that works? What are you building? What are some examples of things that worked?

I'm sure it will be an interesting conversation.

***

I was watching Twitter two nights ago and saw Robert Scoble tweet a link to a video interview with Eric Kim, founder and CEO of Twylah. This is a new algorithm-based app that allows brands and celebrities (I'm guessing this is for the beta) to monetize their Twitter stream.

The app doesn't require any change in behavior. It takes a Twitter stream, analyzes it, places it in topical buckets, and displays it in a condensed, and you could argue more engaging format for a broader audience -- kind of like Paper.li, a format you have probably seen.

In the video, Kim cites research that says that only 8% of the population is on Twitter. If you count inactive accounts and bots, it may even be lower.

To take care of the rest, and help people overall see the content and topics in a more cohesive manner, Twylah takes them off Twitter to a landing page. The app's three main benefits:

own your content -- in a kind of Twitter fan landing page format with the opportunity to have a custom domain, which will be a paid service. Resulting in potentially higher contextual engagement.

get discovered beyond Twitter with built-In SEO -- and see the topics that resonate the most. Each topic can be filtered as a page off Twitter, and you can collect feedback from traffic on topics on a weekly basis to inform your content strategy. They incorporated some features of a newsletter where you can keep high traffic content up top on your landing page, and the ability to preview links like Hootsuite and now Google news do. You can also suppress topics.

give your audience what they want -- from the site: each time you tweet out through Twylah, your followers are directed to an optimized landing page, full of your relevant tweets on the same topic. On Twylah, your tweets are no longer obsolete in a matter of minutes, they will now be recaptured to provide more value to your audience.

The analytics package is under development. It will collect feedback off Twitter, and Twylah on the topics that get the most play based on number of retweets, @ replies, observed as separate columns on the dashboard.

And eventually, also number of clicks and impressions. There was also discussion of looking at favorites. Kim called them the retweets for introverts in the video.

Brands will also have a Facebook like button so people can share the page with their network there, and a space for ad placement. The format reminds me of a campaign landing page with call to action. You can organize the page content as well.

This Twitter fan page format gets to the root of the issue with many other tools that look to measure influence based upon Twitter and now starting to integrate Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.

Social networks exclude those people who may not be friends or connected with that individual, or not versed in using the social network itself effectively. Which means you are losing the benefit of building scale by attracting those who are engaged with a specific topic or subject matter.

You can point people to Twylah to see all your activity, in the same way I have been using FriendFeed. By the looks of it, the plan is to make a brand-owned Web property in a direct marketing friendly format off activity and content shared in social networks.

This would take care of the issue of content sharecropping -- businesses working social media channels are sharecroppers. So are all the users. They labor on the services, both creating and receiving value. But they don't own the fields they cultivate, and can be put off the land whenever it suits the landlord.

***

Look for more tools to be targeting this space.

Because no matter how influential a person or a few may be, based upon their credibility and trust, there is still a gap to cover between buzz and action, convenience and relevance, talk, and walk. That gap is better analysis of data/information.

The Internet and the world wide web have given those with access and even the most rudimentary technology the ability to express their creative talent. Thus giving rise to many a profession and option that were not available just a few short years ago.

One could argue -- and they have -- that the lines between amateurs and professionals have blurred in many areas and industries. Digital technology has driven the cost of producing many things to zero and the availability of like-content and services to the person looking abundant.

Seth Godin has talked about this concept frequently, and so has Kevin Kelly.The good news, as Kevin Kelly explained, is that all you need is 1,000 true fans -- people who derive value from what you're doing and will pay for that benefit. He writes:

the long tail is a decidedly mixed blessing for creators. Individual artists, producers, inventors and makers are overlooked in the equation. The long tail does not raise the sales of creators much, but it does add massive competition and endless downward pressure on prices. Unless artists become a large aggregator of other artist's works, the long tail offers no path out of the quiet doldrums of minuscule sales.

About a year ago, I wrote a post that discussed some options for exposure and visibility that was triggered by the numerous offers I continue to receive to contribute to new sites and online aggregators and networks -- unpaid.

I continue to contribute to select projects in the spirit of open source and to give back to the community. However, because there are only so many hours in a day, I am being more selective with where I spend my time and paying clients win.

It may be connected with exposure, however without a bit of homework and a solid case on hand, you won't know that. In the absence of fair monetary compensation, fair exchange in value, or a worthy cause, there are more creative ways to gain visibility than asking others to work for free.

Here are a few ideas:

do something people find valuable, then sell that

write something extremely helpful to your industry

identify a need in the market and go for it

start a service for a group or niche that really needs it

build relationships first, ask after you have given

And consider all of these items part of a process to build and establish your own platform. Kelly has a recommendation for artists and creators:

A creator, such as an artist, musician, photographer, craftsperson, performer, animator, designer, videomaker, or author - in other words, anyone producing works of art - needs to acquire only 1,000 True Fans to make a living.

A True Fan is defined as someone who will purchase anything and everything you produce.

Harlan's delivery in the video clip is a bit of a rant. However, he does make a point worthy of attention for those making the ask.

In similar circumstances, would you consider the offer acceptable? For example, knowing the site, conference, publication, etc. makes money off your involvement. Are you in a position to help someone else and make it a "fair trade" transaction?

Yet, the science and art of seeing patterns, zooming on what matters, connecting the dots, and betting on the right futures that can make or break a business still depend on the ability to filter, sort, interpret, and make decisions.

All characteristics of human intervention.

In a business, you look closely at the profit and loss (P&L), the actual representation of what is happening, not just at what is possible.

It's the same conversation with people. While we know that at the time of birth each human being has the same genetic potential of Leonardo da Vinci, not everyone gets there. Experience matters.

Difference between content aggregators and curators

Even as search parameters and algorithms are becoming more sophisticated, there is a reason why people still make their own playlists, consume information differently, and use multiple/multimedia sources.

Take a look at this list of nearly 100 fantastic pieces of journalism curated by Conor Friedersdorf, associate editor at The Atlantic. It is probably not the list you would compile. However it's filtered by someone who understands good content and is not just a list of articles that got the most page views.

That would be produced by a content aggregator. The difference is judgment and a personal, if trained, bias. I particularly liked the multimedia and art of storytelling sections. Some of it you may recognize from links that got spread on Twitter, others are new discoveries.

Curating information

Being found in search -- by engines that aggregate and sort content -- is the mere tip of the iceberg. If your value doesn't come across when people land on your site, your bounce rate and business conversion suffer. You suffer proportional to the degree of expectation matching reality.

Case in point -- I was looking for a photographer a couple of days ago. Although I spent about thirty minutes searching for one using the appropriate keywords and geography within the context of a business setting, I kept getting results on family portraits and weddings.

When I asked my network, I came up with environmental and funky landscape photography. Also not a good match. Because a search is still subjective and situational, if you take that kind of photography and wanted more business, you'd have a really good chance of standing out.

I would have added keywords in there if I wanted to attract clients for photography on the road. Show what you know through what it looks like -- using lighting to flatter an image or highlight a particular spot, adding color to make an interesting backdrop to the story, etc.

Selecting content with specific criteria in mind is a form of curation. Aggregating the information is good, adding observation and analysis takes it further, and makes it more valuable.

In digital formats, it also means giving others the ability to find your work more easily. Even museum exhibits attract on the strength of the story they help people tell.

Value equation

You've got to distinguish between what if and what is when you look at true value creation and valuation.

While value is subjective and situational -- entire brands, and economies, are built upon good stories people want to hear and tell, because they identify with them. Execution sets apart what gets found and talked about and what isn't.

***

I've been curating content and information at this site for almost five years, and I have more than 1 million and 107-thousand page views to show for it.

This is a very engaged and smart community of professionals who are making ideas happen every day and are connecting with other people and businesses to do so.

Based upon many conversations I had in the last couple of months, I decided to offer you the ability to promote your business, event, or service at this site by sponsoring its weekly feed. I'm just getting started with this model, so there is room to experiment with you on optimal exposure.

It's a trick question. When was the last time you felt reciprocity with a company? And I'm not talking just about messaging, either. Are we there yet?

Because as Don Schultz says in his seminal book on Integrated Marketing Communications, “…when both the value of the of the customer to the brand and the value of the brand to the customer are high, the relationship will be strong and ongoing.”

Beth Harte said: if there were more reciprocity, upselling (or cross-selling) wouldn’t be a concern of “when is it okay?” because one could assume the trigger would be inherent in the relationship.

In a close enough relationship, someone could alert you when you need something more and you wouldn’t be offended by the suggestion.

The idea of customer reciprocity is intriguing -– is it like a friendship? One that goes much further than the definitions of online "friend" or "follower". Because real money exchanges hands. In the absence of physical rapport, digital execution matters.

Who does it well?

Reciprocity rules

Amazon's secret to online dominance is reciprocity. You can look at the data, think about how your own purchasing is affected by their masterful use of your browsing and purchase data to tailor the site for you. Customers love the attention. Think about it.

Even if you know it's based upon an algorithm, the tool is only as good as the rules written to provide search results. They show they pay attention to what people buy and make suggestions on similar books and materials. An added bonus is the "people like you" who bought this, also got that feature

Another benefit at Amazon is customer reviews.

You can dig into reviews by others, and now you can even read the comments to the reviews. Most of the times, you probably stop at the cross references from customers who bought what you are looking for, but it's nice to have the option to keep reading and discovering new material.

If the reviews weren’t there, even with negatives or neutral thrown in, you might buy something you'd end up regretting. Amazon helps customers not waste precious money.

Harte says I don’t look at it as upselling I look at it as a benefit of being associated with the brand. Because they offer reviews, I don’t mind taking a look at what they are potentially upselling.

That's the way I feel as well. So much so, that I joined their affiliate program -- one of only two I participate in. The other one being to support quality products by a friend. You see, although they are not at the same "friend" level, Amazon managed to create a nice balance of give and take -- reciprocity.

Fair/unfair in reciprocity

First developed in 1962 by John Stacey Adams, a workplace behavioral psychologist, Equity Theory attempts to explain relational satisfaction in terms of perceptions of fair/unfair distributions of resources within interpersonal relationships. [hat tip: Beth Harte]

One of the elements of influence I discuss in my talks and workshops is group behavior. You can maximize collective rewards by working with a group in developing accepted systems for apportioning rewards and costs equitably among members.

Systems of equity will evolve within groups, and members will attempt to induce other members to accept and adhere to these systems. Hence why customer service in social is not fair, and why it is not a long term solution -- people make social comparisons.

What do they see?

Upselling is invisible

Developing relationships with customers needs to be baked into your business for it to pay off at scale -- and where it matters most, profits. Just like with initiatives in social media, in that case, upselling is invisible. It's a natural outcome of having established a mutual interest based on value.

And I'm not talking about coupons. You can offer incentives, recommend other-like products, reassure customers with reviews. The best way to upsell is to develop a system of reciprocity where value is exchanged between a customer and the company.

Reciprocity is one of the levers in marketing by context building. Reciprocity anticipates a need -- the good balance to strike between the entitled quid pro quo, and the lazy status quo.

[Beth Harte and Anna Barcelos collaborated on this post as members of Conversation Agent customer-centric content advisory board]

On more than one occasion, I noticed how people seem to still confuse the concept of transparency with trust.

Even as we make the case for publicness, disclosing private information shared in confidence betrays the very trust someone has placed in you. Trust takes time to build. It takes a moment to destroy.

I'm not talking about whistle blowing on scams of which unfortunately we've had our fill in the last several years. And the best years, I'm sure, are yet to come.

What I'm talking about is more the personal kind of betrayal. The kind of indiscretion that a company wouldn't expect of its agency or consultant, for example -- that's why there are enforceable NDAs. Or when a colleague knowingly throws you under the bus.

Today, it's not only companies that face the privacy in the age of transparency dilemma. (The article linked here is from 2004.)

"Privacy is about self-possession, autonomy, and integrity," wrote Simson Garfinkel, "Over the next fifty years we will see new kinds of threats to privacy that don't find their roots in totalitarianism, but in capitalism, the free market, advanced technology, and the unbridled exchange of electronic information."

Sharing information that is confidential is equivalent to stealing. Often though, the person leaking information -- from a company, or a relationship -- may be not fully aware of the damage they are causing and its consequences.

I've heard it more than once -- if you don't want to see it quoted, don't publish it. Do we need to revisit our settings on trust and transparency in private conversations as well? Should we be cautiously open, or guarded and on the lookout for skilled manipulators?

The opposite of having nothing to hide is not airing all plans in plain sight. Where is the line? Are these tenets still valid in helping us assess how to go about earning the trust we are given?

1. Understand the importance of respect -- an easy example is misquoting someone for the purposes of placing yourself in a good light.

2. Go by the "golden rule" -- you often know when you're doing something that is not right. It feels off. Stop and consider what you'll gain carefully. There's a reason why sayings like "making a pact with the devil" exist. You end up being owned by the very betrayal you made.

3. Take the issue up with the person or parties involved first -- this is more transparent than going above or around them. Breathe deeply and face the conversation and you will breathe more easily afterward.

Whether you're in the camp of trust needing to be hard earned or it being given freely will also say a lot about the kind of person and company you are. In the age of transparency, we still have a need for responsible and helpful filters.

Is betraying someone's confidence ever justified?

Plenty is being written about transparency today, and much of it is worthwhile. But transparency is simply a tool: a process, a way of doing business. It is also a matter of self-preservation. With all this connectivity, you can be sure your "sins" will find you out.

Trust is earned. Trust is more valuable than gold. People will pay for it. And if you're working to earn it now, you're already creating equity in the next economy.

Many opportunities come from attending events, talking with people, participating actively, taking the time to talk with people about their projects. There is no social network that can replace the touch of a human hand. The best sales professionals know that.

Is events attendance one of your networking habits? It should be. For years, I attended every single event happening in my city, as well as major professional conferences. I still do as many as I can. Often on my own dime, using vacation days to make sure I am wholly present to the people in the room.

That's how I attended SxSW for three years in a row, and finally got to speak there this year by submitting a strong proposal. It would have not happened had I not spent time learning about what is discussed in the hallways in years past.

Fresh back from Confab2011, I also have some top level advice on attitude when attending events. Kristina Halvorson set the tone with her opening keynote. Her advice was very simple and can be summarized into one bullet:

your experience of the event depends on you, just like life

I'm sure you've been to events where people were complaining about the speakers, or the room, or the food, or the content. Because they knew more, different, better, etc. The whole point of getting out there is to learn to have an intelligent conversation about information, observations, and experience.

You get those and more when you open up to listening and asking.

My favorite question? Tell me more...

Event discounts

Because I know we're all watching our figures when it comes to spending, I worked with a couple of upcoming conferences I'm attending to pass on discounts to you.

ReadWriteWeb 2WAY Summit

ReadWriteWeb is holding a 2WAY Summit at Columbia University in NYC. Since I will be attending as media, they offered a deeply discounted rate for this community. If you register to attend, my code will take $300 off the full price ($795) ticket, making the total $495.

Here are the details:

WHAT: $300 off the full price of the 2Way Summit, June 13-14

WHERE TO REGISTER:use this link (you will get the discount when you register)

***

Vocus User Conference

Vocus have been getting a ton of inquiries from non-Vocus customers about attending the Vocus Users Conference in June. A testimony to the strong program the team pulled together, and maybe the widget I posted here helped.

Because of the demand, Vocus decided to create a special “Followers Promotion” that allows me to open up the conference to this community. This is the first time they have opened the conference to the industry. For the past 10 years it has been exclusive to Vocus Users only.

The promotion gives me the opportunity to offer you a $100 off the conference entry fee through a special coupon code, with a limit of 20 guests per speaker. The promotion will be delivered on a first come, first served basis. Once the 20 spots are filled using my coupon code, registration for you will be closed.

Here are the details:

WHAT: $100 off the 2011 Vocus Conference, June 16-17

LIMIT: First 20 registrants, per speaker

COUPON CODE:MALTONI (you can enter this in at registration to get the discount)

Conversation Agent

Conversation Agent focuses on business, technology, digital culture, and customer psychology. At Conversation Agent LLC, I help organizations and brands that want to build better customer experiences tell a new story.